The most important proposal in President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address may be one that gets the least attention and, quite possibly, has the least chance of becoming law in the near future: his proposal to create a universal pre-kindergarten program.

The idea is pretty simple. American children are guaranteed an education when they turn five and enter kindergarten. Before that, they may or may not have access to what we now call “pre-school,” which typically depends on the resources (and sometimes the resourcefulness) of their parents.

More affluent families tend to get their kids into decent day cares and nursery schools; less affluent families do not. But poor kids are the ones who need good care the most.

And it works. Should we ever get a Congress that cares about governing again it should be a major priority.

Comments (34)

President Obama could get that program passed by Republicans in a nano-second, if he let the program be run by private Christian firms who would teach the lil’ chillen’s the Bible, startin’ at Adam and Eve (NOT Steve!), and finishing with Jesus and how he wrote the “Sermon on the Mounting Debt” and the US Constitution (to give ‘em a head start on High School)!

And all of that begatting will be covered by Cabbage Patch Kids and stuffed storks.

Forgive me, my dear Alan Tomlinson. I should have written “based on what Matt Yglesias wrote,” which obviously still means I’m sub-mental, but whatever. My comment was more of a question, even if not posed as such – don’t you think? And, as JKTH helpfully posted, it does appear that Obama’s policy is vague on the issue. Which is fine! For now, I guess, especially since the odds of it coming to pass are quite low (hence the point of this post).

That, it goes without saying but I’d better say it, is a serious shame.

So: thanks for dislodging my head from my ass with your foot. Keep it up!

Yup. Daycare for pre-K kids is a huge expense for two-income families, the kind of thing that can eat up 10% or more of after tax income. Obama couched it in the language of equal opportunity, but the appeal runs up through the middle and even upper-middle classes as well.

Trust me, I have twins, and can vouch for the fact that having more than one kid in childcare/preschool can eat up way more than 10% of your after-tax income. For my wife and me, it’s closer to 30%, and we’re not talking Montessori either.

Equally important, early childhood educational stimulation provided by these programs has been shown to dramatically enhance later academic performance among children from disadvantaged backgrounds, who would otherwise not get much such stimulation.

Nixon was really only concerned with foreign policy and worked out a sort of quid-pro-pro with the Democratic controlled Congress. He’d more or less govern as they want on domestic issues and Congress would let him do what he issues on foreign policy.

The stupidest thing about Watergate was how unnecessary it was. If Nixon was slightly less paranoid, most Americans would consider him an above average two term President. Thanks to Watergate, most Americans perceive him like liberals do for once.

I could really do without is the “Nixon was the last liberal president” horseshit.

Er… why?

It seems to me that “the country was once so liberal it could force even a conservative fuckhead like Nixon to affirmatively endorse, campaign on, implement, and/or acquiesce to liberal policies” is a valuable thing to know and to keep in mind.

Here, here. Nixon hated the environmental legislation that got passed, but signed it anyway; he proposed the FAP, and then promptly dropped it and proceeded to relentlessly attack McGovern for proposing the same thing.

Nixon’s Keynesianism lasted precisely as long at it took to get him re-elected and no further.

Efforts to help children thrive bring the greatest increases to GDP, employment, crime reduction, public health and many other important national objectives, than any other type of government spending. It’s a very profitable investment in our future.

I couldn’t agree with this post more. Should be an absolute top priority. Kudos for shining the spotlight on this nugget, Scott. I imagine (and this is the feverish imagination of an economist… stop laughing), that the influence of Alan Krueger on the CEA had something to do with this issue’s elevation.

Obama cited red states Oklahoma and Georgia as leaders in this (which we are). Then, afterwards, David Brooks noted that Oklahoma’s pre-k program shows that Republicans are willing to do this. Nonsense. When universal access to free pre-k became law in Oklahoma, early last decade, the legislature was in Democatic hands and both the State Superintendent of Education and the Governor were Democrats.

Unfortunately it would be pretty much miraculous if the GOP lost the House. Democratic presidential midterms with a 6-8 point gerrymandering edge for the GOP… equals virtually no chance at all. 2010 was a disaster with lengthy repercussions. I think you could argue that the biggest benefit of electing Obama is to prevent an opportunity for Republican SC appointments (in case Scalia wants to retire or someone dies) and to set the stage for another Dem in 2016 as opposed to Romney II (and you can be sure the fed would have goosed the economy for Romney in 2016).

As an immigrant to a European country that has a three-kinderten program starting at age three, I have found that my youngest child, who is now completing that process, speaks the local language perfectly and is completely integrated with the local culture. It has been a huge struggle for the older kids, even the one who started first grade when we moved here.

You want to make sure immigrants to the US speak perfect English and integrate fully? Easy – every child in a similar program, full time, from age three. And you have to pay the kindergarten teachers the same as elementary school teachers. Not cheap, but easy, and guaranteed to work.